On Thursday 05 October 2006 05:36, Kirk Bocek wrote:
> ...
> As you hinted, ext2 has almost the same performance as XFS. Data=writeback
> on ext3 helps some but not a whole lot. Dir_index doesn't seem to do a
> thing.
dir_index helps for many small files in one directory, not for sequential
read/write.
> I'm really torn here. I can make use of the extra write speeds of ext2 or
> XFS. But is XFS stable and supported enough for 'production' use? Will I
> regret a forced fsck on a 1TB ext2 volume?
>> Steve, you say you've been happy with XFS for a few years. Have you been
> using it under any kind of load?
I use XFS on Centos-4 here with 9500-S and 9550-SX. The load is quite heavy
(~30 climate modelling people) and the volume not tiny (~40 TiB). This system
works fine and I have no problems sleeping at night. But then again, if you
want data security you'll have to run backups anyway. Any filesystem can die.
This has already been stated in this thread, but it's worth saying again I
think:
the i386/i686 kernel has 4k kernel stack, x86_64 has 8k, XFS does not like 4k
stacks.
/Peter
> Kirk Bocek
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20061005/b981de69/attachment.sig>